Genesis 1 (Ian)
Ian & Pam Dorion dorioni@ipa.net
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 10:55:40 -0600 (00888792940, 199803011657.KAA25892@siren.ipa.net)
> MATT
> 1. Where do you derive the idea that God apparently created water?
>
> IAN
> 1. Well, you might have me here Matt. I jumped the gun. You see, vs.6
> says, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters." without
> the creation of the waters. So the waters had to have already been
created.
> But you are right, I jumped ahead a verse.
>
> MATT
> You don't need to go as far as v6 to find the 'waters' as they are
> mentioned in v2: 'the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters'
> ('and darkness was upon the face of the deep' could also be considered a
> reference to them), when did God create these waters?
>
> IAN
> You're the expert Matt, you tell me.
>
> MATT
> Not an expert Ian but I'll share what I think based on what I have read.
v2
> is how the heaven(s) and the earth were after God had completed the
> initial act of creation - i.e. 'without form, void, waters'. What would
be
> wrong about this proposition?
>
> IAN
> Well Matt, if you are not an expert and if this is only what you think, I
> will be happy to go along with you on this basis. The fact remains
> however, that IF God created everything and IF the waters were already in
> place, THEN God would have had to have created the waters even though
they
> are
> not mentioned as being created.
>
> MATT
> Where do you get either from the passage of Scripture or my posts that
> the waters were already there? What I am saying is that when 'In the
> beginning God created the heavens and the earth' the result was v2. Is
that
> any
> clearer?
>
> IAN
> Ge. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
> waters.
>
> Now, IF God created the heavens and the earth and as you say, the result
> was the waters, is that not the same as God creating the waters? I don't
> understand what you are trying to say and I do not understand the great
> importance of this. Of course, others on this list seem to have problems
> with you also so I do not feel I am particuarly dense on this subject.
>
> MATT
> Yes it would be about the same, which of course would mean there was
> nothing 'apparent' about it as you earlier thought/said. Is that
progress?
IAN
Matt, I consider whatever point you are trying to make so trivial that it
deserves no further comment. So lets get on to day 2 if you feel you are up
to it.